If organizers of a protest call for the event to be non-violent do attendees have a responsibility to follow that guideline?

13 posts / 0 new
Last post
anon (not verified)
If organizers of a protest call for the event to be non-violent do attendees have a responsibility to follow that guideline?

This is a genuine question, not a rhetorical one. Anarchists reject authoritarianism. Is it authoritarian to bring violence into a non-violent space? Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

anon (not verified)
Some initial, unorganized,

Some initial, unorganized, thoughts on that:

Not to speak for everyone, but if Anarchists organize events where they might be engaging in property destruction (etc.) then they generally try to adhere to the St. Paul principles, which are:

1. our solidarity will be based on respect for a diversity of tactics and the
plans of other groups.
2. the actions and tactics used will be organized to maintain a separation of
time or space.
3. any debates or criticisms will stay internal to the movement, avoiding any
public or media denunciations of fellow activists and events.
4. we oppose any state repression of dissent, including surveillance,
infiltration, disruption and violence. we agree not to assist law enforcement
actions against activists and others.

Time and space play a huge factor in this. Is the event pretty much over? Have the cops gotten bored or angry & shut the original demonstration down? Is there a separate demonstration or event happening near by that the "peaceful" organizer feels entitled to? Did the original non-violent rally turn into a march later on, becoming its' own different event?

And it also probably depends on the general atmosphere/tone of the demonstration, which the hypothetical organizer has no control over. People are going to show up however their feeling that day & there's nothing anyone can do about that. If a lot of people there are feeling rowdy already, are extremely upset, don't care about that organizers motivations because they have their own ideas for how they want to act & then decide to start getting fierce against oppression, then sure, why not help (not provoke) those people? That organizer doesn't get to control peoples outrage if it happens to boil over at an event they helped put together. Just because that organizer had planned a demo in front of a police station or wherever, doesn't mean they get to decide for everyone who shows up to that police station (or wherever) with their own motivations on how to act.

For example, most of the riots in Ferguson, surrounding the death of Mike Brown, started out as "peaceful protests/rallies", but when more people showed up, the crowds' mood tonally shifted & people started to fight back. When that happens it seems more authoritarian to try to stop people from acting on what they feel just because the organizers original intent.

Errsian (not verified)
Peaceful organising = boring

Peaceful organising = boring meakness = liberalism
Violent organizing = boring nastiness = authoritarianism
No organizing = spontaneous fun = individual anarchism

anon (not verified)
Thing with spontaneity

Is cool. Is funs. Is comes and goes.. it lives for the moment... then at the end of the day... Bezos still cashing in... the Machine still there to fuck you up, and stomp your face the next day, and everyday, for a few hundred, thousand, million days... But hey if you wanna use FULL anarcho-nihilo individualist LIT spontaneous insurgent and blow yourself up while meeting with Trump or any police chief then I'm 1000% behind you.

And I get the organize organize organize formulaic blabber from lefties and "anarchists" is boring and gets nowhere, tho ppl not only gotta start somewhere, they gotta also walk to somewhere.

Errsian (not verified)
Stay cool I say, and exciting

Stay cool I say, and exciting to all individualists ♡

anon (not verified)
If organizers of a GOVERNMENT

If organizers of a GOVERNMENT call for the POPULATION OF A TERRITORY to be non-violent do CITIZENS have a responsibility to follow LAW AND ORDER?

This is a genuine question, not a rhetorical one. Anarchists reject authoritarianism. Is it authoritarian to bring violence into a non-violent space WHICH THE STATE HAS CLAIMED AS ITS OWN? Thanks for sharing your thoughts

There's no such thing as a "non-violent space", specially under a government that murders people .


tl;dr: non-violence is a spook (ideology) which only serves to pacify revolt and police "movements", aiding counterinsurgency

So called "public space" is "public" and when shit goes down many people may want to manifest themselves in it in different ways. One group cannot claim it all for itself and determine the rules for everyone who goes through it, except by coercion/force. For there to be freedom of movement, freedom of expression, freedom of association and freedom to congregate (and many of the limited senses of freedom that are in some truncated sense ostensibly defended by USA constitution and Human Rights) there is the implication that there may be a group carrying out one activity in a place in a particular manner, a various other groups and individuals who do so simultaneously, in another manner. So even under liberal pretensions, the idea of a group being the "owners of an even and a public space" just because the made a call and therefore "organized the event, is flimsy rhetoric on its own terms.

Under anarchist pretenses, you can say that protests are a type of representative action, not the type of direct action anarchists would favor. As anti-authoritarians their concern would certainly not be to obstruct a protest, nor to stop people to do as they felt, and they certainly would not tolerate being obstructed to do as they felt themselves. An anarchist is not a police of a new order (contrary to "red"conceptions) they don't want or much less have to defend the terms of protesting envisioned by anyone. They will do their own thing regardless, whether it coincides or not in the space-time of others' protests, or liberal parades, or elections. Moreover, they will avoid, to the degree that they can, to aid states, and all other institutions, in their reproduction and projection of power. They will evade and attack as they see fit and feasible.

Casual Rioter (not verified)

If you're a white person and the organisers were people of colour, you should follow their lead. If they ask for non-violent protest, then that's what it should be

TheTao (not verified)
...and if the organizers

were white and the protesters were POC, then that means you should spit all over the organizers and violently protest.

anon (not verified)

how do you decide who is the 'organizer'? what if i 'organize' my own protest alongside the existing one, do i get to be violent then? please tell me what i SHOULD do, organizer.

anon (not verified)
Its simple,,,..Just be

Its simple,,,..Just be yourself and speak your mind SIMULTANEOUSLY, or "off the cuff". Another old saying "WEAR YOUR HEART ON YOUR SLEEVE".!
But for chrissakes, stop looking to others for cues, or rely on instruction manuals. KNOW THY INNER SELF, and the world is yours!

TheTao (not verified)
Exactly. Thank you.

Wtf, if you go to an event you have to do what the event planners say for demographic reasons? Come the fuck on.



vandal (not verified)
well, no...

No, they don't have any responsability to the organizers i guess. For sure there might be situations were this is a bit more complicated, due to the fact which kind of territory is being held non-violent, and violence against who...
I mean, some "organizers" should be considered movement managers which should be dealt with hostile way.
Anyway: it's rather authoritarian to define the right behaviour in a certain territory at a certain time, especially if it's no room but a street or something the like. "non-violent spaces" i also consider a rather abstract concept, considering the fact that there seems to be enough things that make people react violently (cops, corporate property & the like). If there is nothing the like, normally people will not use violence anyway, no? Or it would be violence against co-protesters, which would show that obviously there's conflict inside the protest, which is another question than the one you posed... or not? Because often, the organizers of "non-violent demos" actually become violent against "violent people". Anyway: No to your first question.

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Enter the code without spaces.